DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Final Rejection
Claims 1-3, 6-10 are pending. Claims 1 and 10 are independent.
Claims 4-5 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rassat et al. (WO2018/115250 A1) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claim. Examiner notes that Rassat et al. teach a 51.5 NTU and the claim 10 as amended is limited to lower than 50 NTU.
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (WO2018204812 A1) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s cancellation of the claim.
The rejection of claims 1, 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (WO2018204812 A1) is maintained.
The rejection of claim(s) 2-3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (WO2018204812 A1) in view of Rassat et al. (WO 2018/115250) is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s urge that the yield stress fluids of Hsu et al. is not analogous to the claimed consumer product selected from a fragrance, flavour, and a cosmetic ingredient as required by the instantly amended claims 1 and 10. Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-10 further address [00150] and [00171] of Hsu et al. urging these modifications would change the principle of the operation of Hsu et al.
In response, upon careful consideration of Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim amendments, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive because Hsu et al. specifically teach the claim 1 limitation that the core comprise at least one functional material. See page 73 [00242] copied herein:
PNG
media_image1.png
412
886
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where Hsu et al. teach the liquid core has an ionically charged polymeric material encapsulated by a semipermeable membrane [00242] such that components (e.g. perfumes, fabric softeners, and suds suppressors) which are more desirably released later in the wash and/or rinse cycle can be encapsulated and controllably released. See page 71, [00234] copied herein:
PNG
media_image2.png
410
902
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill reading these 2 paragraphs of Hsu et al. can reasonably arrive at the claim 1 amendment to the core comprising at least one functional fragrance material as claimed and Hsu et al. [00150] and [00171] further guide one of ordinary skill to the claimed modifications with the same liquid core having an ionically charged polymeric material encapsulated by a semipermeable membrane [00242] such that components (e.g. perfumes,…) encompasses claim language to the at least one functional material selected from fragrance, flavour and cosmetic ingredients would necessarily yield a fluid reading upon the claims.
Accordingly the rejections are maintained and the claim amendments are addressed below.
Claim Rejections
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (WO2018204812 A1).
With respect to independent claim 1, Hsu et al. teach laundry detergents with liquid cores [00242] and an aminoplast resin microcapsule [00241] with a polymer shell [0018]. See also page 1, [0001] and [0031] teaching high clarity and transparent consumer products having a turbidity value of less than 50 [0031].
Claim 1 limitation to the microcapsules comprising a core and a shell around the core is met by Hsu et al. [0001] teaching core-shell polymers comprising a crosslinked core and a linear to slightly crosslinked outer shell.
Claim 1 limitation that the core comprise at least one functional material is met by
Hsu et al. teaching [00242] liquid core has an ionically charged polymeric material encapsulated by a semipermeable membrane [00242] such that components (e.g. perfumes, fabric softeners, and suds suppressors) which are more desirably released later in the wash and/or rinse cycle can be encapsulated and controllably released. See page 71, [00234]-page 73,[00242] meets the claim 1 amendment to the core comprising at least one functional fragrance material. claim 1 limitation that the core comprise at least one functional material is met by Hsu et al. teaching on page 73 liquid core has an ionically charged polymeric material encapsulated by a semipermeable membrane [00242] such that components (e.g. perfumes, fabric softeners, and suds suppressors) which are more desirably released later in the wash and/or rinse cycle can be encapsulated and controllably released. See page 71, [00234]-page 73,[00242] meeting the claim 1 amendment to the core comprising at least one functional fragrance material along with Hsu et al. [00150] and [00171] guiding one of ordinary skill to the claimed modifications with the same liquid core having an ionically charged polymeric material encapsulated by a semipermeable membrane [00242] such that components (e.g. perfumes,…) encompasses claim language to the at least one functional material selected from fragrance, flavour and cosmetic ingredients would necessarily yield a stress fluid reading upon the clamed consumer product.
Hsu et al. do not teach the mean total surface area of the plurality of microcapsules comprised in 1L of consumer product is from 0.02 to 0.27 m2 as required by claim 1. Hsu et al. [00244] guide one of ordinary skill to suspension particles having a particle size of from about 0.017 to about 2000 microns with average particle diameter with distribution between 5 microns to about 500 microns. Thus the mean total surface area would be 0.1256 m2 if the diameter is 200um, and a mean total surface area of 0.27 m2 when the diameter in the Surface Area formula = π * d² is 293 um which diameters are disclosed by Hsu et al. [00244] guiding one of ordinary skill to a diameter less than 500 um. And it is the Examiner’s position that PHOSITA would know Surface Area = π * d² to arrive at a mean total surface area that falls within the claimed range ie, 0.0314 m2 when the diameter is 100um which value falls within the claimed range of 0.02-0.27m2.
Hsu et al. do not explicitly teach the mean total surface area of the plurality of microcapsules comprised in 1L of consumer product is from 0.02 to 0.27 m2 as is required by claim 1.
However, it would have been nonetheless obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed mean total surface area from 0.02 to 0.27 m2 in 1L because Hsu et al. teach the same liquid detergent consumer product, having a plurality of microcapsules with the same aminoplast shell and perfume core having the same claimed diameter and it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect the same diameter aminoplast microcapsules in the same 1 L volume to have the same claimed mean total surface area and one of ordinary skill can use the commonly known surface Area = π * d² to arrive at a mean total surface area that falls within the claimed mean total surface area range from 0.2 to 0.27 m2 in general.
Regarding the at least one functional fragrance material of claim 6, see [00161] on pages 48-49 of Hsu et al. describing perfume raw materials. Given the inconsistent perfume nomenclature in the art, it is the Examiner’s position that the perfumes disclosed by Hsu et al. are the same if not similarly equivalent to those listed in claim 6. Burden is on Applicant to prove otherwise.
Regarding the shell material of claim 7, Hsu et al. teach in [00241] the shell of the microcapsule comprises an aminoplast resin. See page 73.
Regarding the consumer product of claim 8, see [00238-00242] on page 72-73 teaching the detergent composition comprising detergent ingredients, adjuvants, or benefit agents encapsulated in the form of microcapsules or microencapsulates containing one or more of the materials. The terms "microcapsules" and "microencapsulates" are used interchangeably herein. One type of microcapsule, referred to as a wall or shell capsule, comprises a generally spherical hollow shell of insoluble polymer material, within which the ingredient, adjuvant or benefit agent is contained. See also the consumer product detergent examples in table 4 having 8-13 NTU turbidity.
Regarding the method of claim 9, see [00271-00274] teaching clear formulations derived by selecting a Base A, Base B, Base C encompassing claim 9a. [00271] and table 3 describing them as being visually clear. {00279] teaches the claim 9b where in the final detergent formulations were prepared by post-adding the emulsion polymer into the pre-made base at the given polymer dosage level (Table 4) and the remaining water. Samples were mixed with a magnetic stir bar overnight to ensure homogeneous mixing. The rheology, aesthetic and suspension properties of the manual dish washing formulations containing a staged polymer [00233]-[00242] were measured and reported in Table 4, on page 93 On pages71-74, Hsu et al. describe dispersing of the suspended particles, specifically teaching particle or bead visibility is, of course, determined by a number of interrelated factors including size of the beads and the various optical properties of the beads and of the liquid composition they are dispersed within. A transparent or translucent liquid matrix in combination with opaque or translucent beads will generally render the particles visible if they have a minor dimension of 0.2 mm or greater, but smaller beads may also be visible under certain circumstances. Even transparent beads in a transparent liquid matrix might be visibly distinct if the refractive properties of the particles and liquid are sufficiently different. Furthermore, even particles dispersed in a somewhat opaque liquid matrix might be visibly distinct if they are big enough and are different in color from the matrix.
With respect to independent claim 10, Hsu et al. teach laundry detergents with liquid cores [00242] and an aminoplast resin microcapsule [00241] with a polymer shell [0018]. See also page 1, [0001] and [0031] teaching high clarity and transparent consumer products having a turbidity value of less than 50 [0031]. Hsu et al. specifically teach the claim 10 amendment that the core comprise at least one functional material. See page 73 [00242] copied herein:
PNG
media_image1.png
412
886
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where Hsu et al. teach the liquid core has an ionically charged polymeric material encapsulated by a semipermeable membrane [00242] such that components (e.g. perfumes, fabric softeners, and suds suppressors) which are more desirably released later in the wash and/or rinse cycle can be encapsulated and controllably released. See page 71, [00234] copied herein:
PNG
media_image2.png
410
902
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill reading these 2 paragraphs of Hsu et al. can reasonably arrive at the claim 10 amendment to the core comprising at least one functional fragrance material as claimed and Hsu et al. [00150] and [00171] further guide one of ordinary skill to the claimed modifications with the same liquid core having an ionically charged polymeric material encapsulated by a semipermeable membrane [00242] such that components (e.g. perfumes,…) encompasses claim language to the at least one functional material selected from fragrance, flavour and cosmetic ingredients. However, Hsu et al. do not explicitly teach the mean total surface area of the plurality of microcapsules comprised in 1L of consumer product is from 0.02 to 0.27 m2 as is required by independent claim 10.
It would have been nonetheless obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed mean total surface area from 0.02 to 0.27 m2 in 1L because Hsu et al. teach the same liquid detergent consumer product, having a plurality of microcapsules with the same aminoplast shell and perfume core having the same claimed diameter and it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect the same diameter aminoplast microcapsules in the same 1 L volume to have the same claimed mean total surface area and one of ordinary skill can use the commonly known surface Area = π * d² to arrive at a mean total surface area that falls within the claimed mean total surface area range from 0.2 to 0.27 m2 in general.
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (WO2018204812 A1) as applied to claims 1, 6-10 above, and further in view of Rassat et al. (WO 2018/115250).
Hsu et al. is relied upon as set forth above for teach laundry detergents with liquid cores [00242] and an aminoplast resin microcapsule [00241] with a polymer shell [0018]. See also page 1, [0001] and [0031] teaching high clarity and transparent consumer products having a turbidity value of less than 50 [0031]. Hsu et al. [00244] guide one of ordinary skill to suspension particles having a particle size of from about 0.017 to about 2000 microns with average particle diameter with distribution between 5 microns to about 500 microns. However, Hsu et al. do not teach the surface mean diameter (D3,2) and volume median diameter Dv(50) of claims 2-3.
In the analogous art, Rassat et al. page 3,ln.5-10 define the "microcapsule", or the similar, is meant that capsules have a particle size distribution in the micron range (e.g. a mean diameter (d(v, 0.5)) comprised between about 1 and 100 microns with a mean diameter of less than 25 micron which diameter disclosed by Rassat et al. encompasses the 5 to 50um diameter required in claims 2-3. Claim 3 requires a Dv(50) median value less than 50um as is also taught by Rassat et al. page 3,ln5-10 and page 22,ln.8-10.
Hsu et al. and Rassat et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of clear consumer products comprising aminoplast core-shell microcapsules in general.
It would have been nonetheless obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hsu et al. with the claimed surface mean diameter D(3,2) and volume median diameter Dv(50) as required in claims 2-3 because Rassat et al. teach aminoplast core shell capsules as used in Hsu et al. commonly have a particle size distribution in the micron range (e.g. a mean diameter (d(v, 0.5)) comprised between about 1 and 100 microns with a mean diameter of less than 25 micron which diameter disclosed by Rassat et al. encompasses the 5 to 50um diameter required in claims 2-3. It is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect the same aminoplast core-shell microcapsule of Hsu et al. to have similar surface mean diameter D(3,2) and volume median diameter Dv(50) as claimed and described by Rassat et al. because Hsu et al. teach the suspension particles, encapsulated materials and beads have a particle size of from about 0.017 to about 2000 microns with average particle diameter with distribution between 5 microns to about 500 microns [00244] which overlaps within the same aminoplast microcapsule particle size distribution of Rassat et al. in the micron range (e.g. a mean diameter (d(v, 0.5)) comprised between about 1 and 1000 microns, preferably between 1 and 500 microns) and both Hsu et al. and Rassat et al describe their aminoplast microcapsule with the same external oligomer-based shell or a polymeric shell and an internal continuous oil phase enclosed by the external shell.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PREETI KUMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights